property of the landowner may be made in favor of the company; 22 but it is otherwise, as it respects general benefits to the landowner, common to others or to the whole community, resulting from the building of the road.23 The damages should be estimated with reference to the purpose for which the land was acquired and used by the owner.24 A building taken should be assessed at its value as such, instead of assessing the value of the materials.25 And damages to a mill property in lessening the advantages of the water-power, present and prospective, may be considered.26 But contingent future disadvantages and unopened mines are not to be taken into consideration.27 In an action for damages for the unlawful construction of a railroad upon the plaintiff's land, he is entitled to recover the difference between the value of the land when the injury began, and the value afterwards; 28 and such exemplary damages as the evidence may warrant. 29 But the damages should not include the

value of the land taken.80

1 Pettibone v. La Crosse etc. R. R. Co. 14 Wis. 443; and see New Albany etc. R. R. Co. v. Connelly, 7 Ind. 32; McIntire v. Western etc. R. R. Co. 67 No. Car. 278.

2 Daniels v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 35 Iowa, 129; and see Austin v. Rutland R. R. Co. 45 Vt. 215; St. Joseph etc. R. R. Co. 13 Kan. 496; Conger v. Burlington etc. R. R. Co. 41 Iowa, 419; Smith v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 67 I. 191. As to the right of a landowner to an injunction against a railroad company, where his compensation has not been assessed or paid: see Omalia etc. R. R. Co. v. Menk, 4 Neb. 21; New Orleans etc. R. R. Co. v. Frederic, 46 Miss. 1; Pickert v. Ridgefield Park R. R. Co. 25 N. J. Eq. 316; Raelker v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. 50 Ind. 127; Gilman r. Sheboygan etc. R. R. Co. 40 Wis. 653; Cobb v. Ill. etc. R. R. Co. 68 Ill. 233; California etc. R. R. Co. v. Central etc. R. R. Co. 47 Cal. 549; Cosens v. Bognor Railw. Co. Law R. 1 Ch. App. 594.

3 Platt v. Western etc. R. R. Co. 65 No. Car. 74.

4 Cunningham v. Pacific R. R. Co. 61 Mo. 33. And compare N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. v. Kip, 46 N. Y. 546.

5 Cunningham v. Pacific R. R. Co. 61 Mo. 33; and see East Penn'a R. R. Co. v. Schollenberger, 54 Pa. St. 144.

6 See McIntyre v. Easton etc. R. R. Co. 26 N. J. Eq. 425; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 78 Ill. 96. An owner is one who has some in. terest in the land at the time the injury was done: Phila. etc. R. R. Co. . Lawrence, 10 Phila. 604.

7 Lohman v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co. 18 Minn. 174.

8 Grand Rapids etc. R. R. Co. v. Alley, 34 Mich. 16.

9 Severin v. Cole, 38 Iowa, 463; Martin v. London etc. Co. Law K. 1 Eq. 145; Mich. Air Line Railw. Co. v. Barnes, 40 Mich. 383.

BOONE CORP.-82.

10 Watson v. New York etc. R. R. Co. 47 N. Y. 157; 6 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 91.

11 McIntyre v. Easton etc. R. R. Co. 26 N. J. Eq. 425.

12 Matter of Prospect Park etc. R. R. Co. 8 Hun, 30; 67 N. Y. 371. Compare Matter of Marsh, 71 N. Y. 315.

13 Whitman v. Boston etc. R. R. 7 Allen, 313; Logansport etc. R. R Co. v. Buchanan, 52 Ind. 163. Compare Lyon v. Green Bay etc. R. R. 42 Wis. 538; Metier v. Easton etc. R. R. Co. 37 N. J. L. 229; Graham v. Connersville etc. R. R. Co. 36 Ind. 463; 10 Am. R. 56; Hampden Paint etc. Co. v. Springfield etc. R. R. Co. 124 Mass. 118.

14 Whitman v. Boston etc. R. R. 7 Allen, 313; Old Colony R. R. Co. v. Miller, 125 Mass. 1. Compare Atlantic etc. R. R. Co. v. Koblentz, 21 Ohio St. 334; Warren v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co. 21 Minn. 424; Rhys v. Dare Valley Railw. Co. Law R. 19 Eq. 93.

15 Clark v. Vt. etc. R. R. Co. 28 Vt. 103.

16 Fleming v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 34 Iowa, 353; Clark v. Vt. etc. R. R. Co. 28 Vt. 103.

17 King v. Iowa Midland R. R. Co. 34 Iowa, 458; and see Turner v. Sheffield etc. Railw. Co. 10 Mees. & W. 425.

18 Lawrence v. Great Northern Railw. Co. 15 Jur. 652; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. Coon, 6 Watts & S. 101; Bangor etc. R. R. Co. v. McComb, 60 Me. 290.

19 Peoria etc. R. R. Co. v. Sawyer, 71 Ill. 361; Somerville etc. R. R v. Doughty, 2 Zab. 495; Shenango R. R. Co. v. Braham, 79 Pa. St. 447; East Brandywine etc. R. R. Co. v. Rauck, 78 id. 454; Tucker v. Mass. etc. R. R. Co. 118 Mass. 546; Walker v. Old Colony etc. R. R. 103 id. 10; 4 Am. R. 509; Matter of Poughkeepsie etc. R. R. Co. 63 Barb. 151; Ak bany etc. R. R. Co. v. Dayton, 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 182; Virginia etc. R. R. v. Hewry, 8 Nev. 165; Sherwood v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co. 21 Minn. 127; Adden v. White Mts. etc. R. R. Co. 55 N. H. 413; Kostendader v. Pierce, 37 Iowa, 645; Gear v. Railroad Co. 43 id. 83; Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. Lansing, 52 Ind. 229; Va. etc. Railw. Co. v. Lynch, 13 Nev. 92; North Pacific R. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 50 Cal. 90. The proper inquiry is, what is the fair marketable value of the whole land taken, without the railway, and then what will be the fair marketable value of the land not taken? The difference will be the true amount of compensation to be awarded: Black River etc. R. R. Co. v. Barnard, 9 Hun, 104; and see Matter of N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 6 id. 149; Matter of Prospect Park etc. R. R. Co. 24 id. 199; Louisville etc. Railw. v. Thompson, 18 Mon. B. 735; San Francisco etc. R. R. Co. v. Caldwell, 31 Cal. 367; Powers v. Hazleton etc. Railw. Co. 33 Ohio St. 429.

20 Adden v. White Mts. R. R. Co. 55 N. H. 413; 20 Am. R. 220. But compare l'atten v. Northern R. R. Co. 33 Pa. St. 426; Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. v. Lazarus, 28 id. 203.

21 Winona etc. R. R. Co. v. Denman, 10 Minn. 267; Raleigh etc. R. R. Co. v. Wicker, 74 No. Car. 220; Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Glazebrook, 1 Bush 325.

22 Railroad Co. v. Tyree, 7 W. Va. 693; Henderson etc. Railw.. Dickerson, 17 Mon. B. 173; Wilson v. Rockford etc. R. R. Co. 59 Ill. 273; Todd v. Kankakee etc. R. R. Co. 78 id. 530; Greenville etc. Railw.v. Partlow, 5 Rich. 428.

23 Woodfolk v. Nashville etc. Railw. 2 Swan, 422; Little Miami Railw. v. Collett, 6 Ohio St. 182; Hornstein v. Atlantic etc. R. R. Co. 51 Pa. St. 87; Minn. etc. R. R. Co. v. McNamara, 13 Minn. 508; Hosher v. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co. 60 Mo. 303. Compare California etc. R. R. Co. v. Armstrong, 46 Cal. 85.

24 Welch v. Milwaukee etc. Railw. Co. 27 Wis. 108.

པ

25 Lafayette etc. R. R. Co. v. Winslow, 66 Пll. 219.

26 Dorlan v. East Brandywine etc. R. R. Co. 46 Pa. St. 520.

27 Searle v. Lackawanna R. R. Co. 33 Pa. St. 57.

28 Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Baker, 73 Ill. 316. Compare Hartz v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co. 21 Minn. 358; Harrison v. Iowa etc. R. R. Co. 36 Iowa. 323; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Davis. 86 Ill. 20.

29 Anderson etc. R. R. Co. v. Kernodle, 54 Ind. 314.

30 Anderson etc. R. R. Co. v. Kernodle, 54 Ind. 314; Sherman v. Milwaukee etc. R. R. Co. 40 Wis. 645.

§ 250. Title or interest acquired in lands.-The right of passage which a railroad company acquires across the land of private individuals, whether by private purchase,1 or under the right of eminent domain,2 is an interest in the land. In some of the states, railway companies may acquire the absolute fee in land by purchase and deed in fee-simple, and sell and convey the same, when no longer needed for the corporate purposes. It has, however, been held, that a railway, by a deed in feesimple, acquires only a right of way. And it is the general rule in the United States, that the title acquired by railroad companies, under statutory proceedings to condemn lands, is not the absolute fee-simple, but merely the right to use the lands for their purpose." The fee remains in the owners, subject to that use, and on the discontinuance of the use, such owners are entitled to resume possession.8 Trees standing on the land taken, and which may be useful in the construction of its road, become the property of the company.9 So the company may use, in the construction of its road, materials removed in grading it; 10 but may not sell such materials. 11 Nor does the company, in procuring its right of way, acquire the right to enter upon and dig ditches through lands adjacent thereto; 12 nor the right to divert a stream of water from its natural channel, to the injury of the landowner.18 And the right to the minerals below the surface of the land taken remains in the landowner, subject only to the right of the company to construct and operate its road as authorized by law. 14 But one whose land has been taken for a railroad cannot afterward rightfully enter thereon, and

17

dig and carry away the soil, or do any other act which interferes with the use of the land by the railroad company.15 And where a railroad company acquires the fee of lands for its road, it has an exclusive right to unobstructed possession above its road. 16 Authority to a railroad company to locate its road upon certain land does not authorize it to convert the land to a different purpose; as, for instance, to the construction of a tollhouse. 18 But where the charter of such company author-* izes it to acquire, by purchase, real estate necessary for the construction of its road, lands deeded to it will be presumed to be acquired for that purpose. 19 Land taken by the state for a railroad, either by a fee-simple purchase, or by right of eminent domain, does not revert to the original owner upon an abandonnent of the use for which it was taken.20

1 See ante, § 246.

2 See unte, § 247.

3 East Penn'a R. R. Co. v. Schollenberger, 54 Pa St. 144.

4 See Nicoll v. N. Y. etc. Railw. Co. 12 N. Y. 121; Page v. Heineberg, 40 Vt. 81.

5 Yates v. Van De Bogert, 56 N. Y. 526; Kenney v. Wallace, 24 Hun, 478.

6 See Dean v. Sullivan Railw. 22 N. H. 316; United States v. Harris, 1 Sum. 21.

7 West. Penn'a R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 59 Pa. St. 290; Kellogg v. Malin, 50 Mo. 406; 11 Am. R. 426; Railroad Co. v. Davis, 2 Dev. & B. 457; Heard v. Brooklyn, 60 N. Y. 242; Kansas Ceut. Railw. Co. v. Allen, 22 Kan. 285; 31 Am. R. 190; Alabama etc. R. R. Co. v. Burkett, 42 Ala. 83. In Vermont, the title acquired is ordinarily the entire fee: Troy etc. R. R. Co. v. Potter, 42 Vt. 265. And in Minnesota the easement of railroad companies in lands taken for their roads, is practically equiv alent to the fee: Robbins v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co. 22 Minn. 286.

8 Alabama etc. R. R. Co. v. Burkett, 42 Ala. 83; Strong v. Brooklyn, 68 N. Y. 1; Jackson v. Rutland etc. Railw. Co. 25 Vt. 151; Hastings_v. Railroad Co. 38 Iowa, 316. Compare Pinkerton v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 109 Mass. 527; Woodworth v. Payne, 74 N. Y. 196, 201.

9 Taylor v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 38 N. J. L. 28; Blake v. Rich, 34 N. H. 282. And see Brainard v. Clapp, 10 Cush. 6; Preston v. Dubuque etc. R. R. Co. 11 Iowa, 15.

10 Evans v. Haefner, 29 Mo. 141; Chapin v. Sullivan R. R. 39 N. H. 564. 11 Aldrich v. Drury, 8 R. I. 554; 5 Am. R. 624.

12 State v. Armell, 8 Kan. 288.

13 Stodghilly. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 43 Iowa, 26; 22 Am. R. 211; and see Lake Superior etc. R. R. Co. v. Greve, 17 Minn. 322.

14 Lyon v. Gormley, 53 Pa. St. 261; Blake v. Rich, 34 N. H. 282.

15 Conn. etc. R. R. Co. v. Holton, 32 Vt. 43.

16 Junction R. R. Co. v. Boyd, 8 Phila. 224. 17 Giesey v. Cin. etc. Railw. 4 Ohio St. 308; and see Lance's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 16.

18 Cape Girardeau etc. Gravel Road Co. v. Renfroe, 58 Mo. 265.

19 Yates v. Van De Rogert, 56 N. Y. 526. Compare Boston etc. R. R. Co. v. Greenbush, 5 Laus. 451.

20 Haldeinan v. Penn'a Cent. R. R. 50 Pa. St. 425. And compare Heyward v. Mayor etc. 7 N. Y. 314; Rexford v. Knight, 11 id. 30s; De Varaigne v. Fox, 2 Blatchf. 95.

1

§ 251. Location of road.-Before proceeding with the construction of a railroad a survey of the route must be made; and the company should define with precision the location and the quantity of land required, in order to show the landowner the extent of the claim made.2 Experimental surveys may, however, be made at pleasure, before the final location of the route; since the mere experimental survey of a route confers no vested right. But after the road has been located and constructed between the termini fixed by the charter, the power of the company to select the location is exhausted,5 and it cannot be indulged with another choice. And this is so. although the change sought is not to appropriate the land of an individual, but to use a highway. The route can be changed only by authority of a legislative act.8 Even the power to "maintain a railroad does not imply a power to change the location after the railroad has been constructed. But where the char

ter fixes one terminus of the road at or near a certain point, the company is permitted a large discretion in locating its route, 10 the exercise of which will not be reviewed, unless the company has clearly abused the privilege, or acted in bad faith. Generally, all railroad charters must be taken to allow the exercise of such a discretion in the location of a route as is incident to an ordinary practical survey thereof, made with reference to the nature of the country to be passed over, and the obstacles to be encountered or avoided. 12 Where a railroad company was organized by an act of the legislature,